About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
there in washington when the clinton rates that we're all talking about now went into effect back in 1993. you probably remember the republicans saying there would be a second recession and millions of jobs lost and none of of that happened in the 1990s. now we're back at the point where democrats for a decade have fought the lower rates and saying we need clinton rates. if it's going to happen, this is sort of the moment. the news at least today right now in terms of where these negotiations have gone is republicans seem to be putting out the word that the potential framework for compromise on this is 37%. instead of going up to 39.6, which was the top rate that clinton set, it's down to 35 now. they move to 37, and republicans are a critical number of republicans in the house are able to say, well we didn't give if all the way. we got the best deal we could and held them to 37%. from the democrats' standpoint after fighting it for a decade, do you think it's good enough to get to 37%? >> normally that's where a compromise is. whenever you legislate numbers and tax rates are always just the l
republicans? joining us for a fair & balanced debate, simon rosenberg, a former clinton campaign adviser and president and founder of ndn, just for clarity, a democrat. and the former chairman of the republican party of virginia. kate, does the republican party mead to change its position on immigration? >> well, does it darn dash no it needs to actually star, it needs to talk bim congratulations. strstrategic decisions were made to stay away from the issues that affected these democrat i cans that the republicans did terrible with. the democrats define you on these positions, then as anti-immigration or as the president defined the republicans as the enemy of latino, he actually used that word. rips have to start being savvy and realize that their message is won't that truly does appeal to immigrants, the one of hope and opportunity. why do immigrants come to the united states? for freedom and prosperity. republicans have to start conveying they are the party of freedom and prosperity and start talking about legal immigration. look at these people around the world who have spent their l
is an excellent match to the strain. >>> hillary clinton for new york city mayor. that's what outgoing mayor michael bloomberg wants. according to the "new york times," bloomberg reach ed out o the secretary of state and asked her to consider running next year but says hillary clinton declined. secretary said she will leave public service once her successor is in place. >>> one of the world's leading experts in fashion add the title of ambassador to her name? anna wintour, editor in chief of vogue magazine is one of several people president obama is considering for the ambassador post to the united kingdom or france. wintour is a u.s. citizen, but was born in the united kingdom. she is one of the president's biggest fund-raisers. >>> federal judge temporarily blocks federal law, banning the use of conversion therapy. his ruling applies to only three providers who want the law overturned. the therapy is aimed at helping change a minor sexual orientation from gay to straight. >>> 13 people dead, 32 wounded. now the judge in the case has been removed. u.s. court of appeals for the armed service
to the clinton levels, a time when the american economy is doing exceptionally well, then there will not be an agreement. >> but house speaker john bigger is digging in himself, admitting talks are going nowhere. speaker boehner also described the moment when secretary geithner first showed him the president's opening offer. >> i was just flabbergasted. i looked at him and said, "you can't be serious." i've just never seen anything like it. you know, we've got seven weeks between election day and the end of the year. and three of those weeks have been wasted with this nonsense. right now i would say we're nowhere, period. we're nowhere. we've put a serious offer on the table by putting revenues up there to try to get this question resolved. but the white house has responded with virtually nothing. they've actually asked for more revenue than they've been asking for the whole entire time. >> what are the chances we're going to go over the cliff? >> there's clearly a chance. >> lindsey graham said the same thing yesterday, michael steele. he said he thinks we are going
hillary clinton as she prepares to step down. michael bloomberg called clinton to encourage her to enter the 2013 race for new york mayor when his term end. "the new york times" made it clear that she had no interest in the job. if she, however, decides to change her mind, she has one hurdle she has to overcome. she has to be a resident of the city. she bought a home when sheep deep sided to run for senate. >> exactly. >> new york senate years ago. >> you would imagine hillary clinton is one of the superstars in politics, and she has certain star power. you would think if she comes back into politics at this point -- they say she is not -- she would want a national office compared to a big, big job like mayor of new york city. if she gets in the game, she's going for the top again. the white house, not here in new york. >> what is mayor bloomberg going to do, steps down december 31st of 2013. >> count his money, i guess. >>> speaking of money, mitt romney is making a career move of sorts. he's rejoining the board of directors for marriott hoe tels. romney held the post from 1993 to 2002.
by president clinton in 1996, and it's a law that says the federal government, all as pecks of the federal government, including the internal revenue service will not recognize same-sex marriages even many states where same-sex marriage is legal and two appeals courts have held that that is unconstitutional, that it is unlawful discrimination. the obama administration agrees that this law is unconstitutional. it's now being defended by a lawyer hired by the house of representatives, and the case about is the defense of marriage act constitutional, that is one. there are several different cases raising that issue that the justices are probably going to decide whether to hear today. >> california's prop 8, what would that entail? >> propositional is a very different case because that's really a more fundamental case that potentially could apply in every state of the union. basically that question is does the constitution require that everyone, gay or straight, has the right to get married, and what makes the proposition 8 case potentially so earth-shaking in its politics is that it might not
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)